Recently I've decided to keep a side count for Aces in addition to the normal hi-lo count. What would be the proper way of Kelly betting if I know the TC for aces is say +1, +2, etc. Should I disregard the amount of 10/face cards remaining. For example, I may have a TC of +1 in a 6 deck game but with the vast majority of that positive count being made up of aces, would I not want to bet substantially more than the TC would indicate? Maybe I'm better off moving to the High Opt count?
Side count for Hi-Lo
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
UK-21
Well-Known Member
I posted to a thread on this subject less than a week ago.
The advantage of side counting aces with hi-lo for shoe games is greater in the UK, where the dealer doesn't take a hole card, and the subsequent ace on a ten will win all doubles and split bets. But I've calculated, very roughly, that the advantage to keeping an ace side count in the UK game (all four and six deck shoes) is marginal - extra work and extra risk of errors for occasional instances where doing so will glean an advantage.
For the US game, where the dealer checks for BJ before anyone plays, I would think the advantage of side-counting aces in shoe games is virtually nil. The only time I canb see it will be of any additional advantage will be in a neg count where there has been a less than expectation number of aces dealt out. A greater chance of BJ's but where normally a minimum bet will be made. In this case, deviating from a normal betting ramp is justified, although if kelly betting you would have to calculate the %age advantage - which will change dependent on the neg TC and number of aces still left in the shoe. As I said before, I think all this is tweaking at the edges.
Anyone from the other side of the pond care to comment?
The advantage of side counting aces with hi-lo for shoe games is greater in the UK, where the dealer doesn't take a hole card, and the subsequent ace on a ten will win all doubles and split bets. But I've calculated, very roughly, that the advantage to keeping an ace side count in the UK game (all four and six deck shoes) is marginal - extra work and extra risk of errors for occasional instances where doing so will glean an advantage.
For the US game, where the dealer checks for BJ before anyone plays, I would think the advantage of side-counting aces in shoe games is virtually nil. The only time I canb see it will be of any additional advantage will be in a neg count where there has been a less than expectation number of aces dealt out. A greater chance of BJ's but where normally a minimum bet will be made. In this case, deviating from a normal betting ramp is justified, although if kelly betting you would have to calculate the %age advantage - which will change dependent on the neg TC and number of aces still left in the shoe. As I said before, I think all this is tweaking at the edges.
Anyone from the other side of the pond care to comment?
Insurance
Wouldn't it be useful for the insurance bet? Which they have in the US but not in the UK (except for even money).
For instance, you could have a true count of +3 but it could be because the deck is disproportionatey heavy in aces. A side count of aces would tell you this and warn you from making the insurance bet.
Wouldn't it be useful for the insurance bet? Which they have in the US but not in the UK (except for even money).
For instance, you could have a true count of +3 but it could be because the deck is disproportionatey heavy in aces. A side count of aces would tell you this and warn you from making the insurance bet.
UK-21
Well-Known Member
Yes, absolutely. But as there are four times more tens than aces in a deck, you'd have to calculate the point where you wouldn't take insurance at TC+3. At a guess I would think it would be where there were at least an extra two aces per deck left in the shoe to compensate - ie RC= +9, three decks left, ace count = 6 (so 18 left in the shoe).
As TC+3 appears only around 8% of the time, how often is this likely to occur? You'd need to run a decent sample sim to get a hold on a figure and then calc the EV.
As TC+3 appears only around 8% of the time, how often is this likely to occur? You'd need to run a decent sample sim to get a hold on a figure and then calc the EV.
blackjackstudent
Well-Known Member
newb99,
If you are side counting the aces and the TC (Hi-Lo) is in the negative, that means that the chances of a player/dealer's natural is lower. Yes, if you are dealt an ace or one of your first two cards whether you are playing a hole game or no hole game, you have a significant advantage over the dealer of not busting. If one of your first two cards happen to be an ace, you will only have a 15% chance of busting and this % is lower when the count is in the negative range.
It's more costly to stand on A,5 vs 4 compared to standing on 3,3 vs 4 because having the ace gives you more of an advantage.
If you are side counting the aces and the TC (Hi-Lo) is in the negative, that means that the chances of a player/dealer's natural is lower. Yes, if you are dealt an ace or one of your first two cards whether you are playing a hole game or no hole game, you have a significant advantage over the dealer of not busting. If one of your first two cards happen to be an ace, you will only have a 15% chance of busting and this % is lower when the count is in the negative range.
It's more costly to stand on A,5 vs 4 compared to standing on 3,3 vs 4 because having the ace gives you more of an advantage.
UK-21
Well-Known Member
How much of an advantage? Are you able to quantify it?blackjackstudent said:
That's the problem - although there are all sorts of theoretical advantages to keeping an ace side count when counting down a six decker, how can you use that count information to adapt your playing strategy (betting ramp and index deviations) to your advantage? And are the benefits really worth the extra effort? The consensus amongst the gurus is that it isn't.
creeping panther
Banned
Ace
CP
I use it with great results in DD, not in 6d.newb99 said:
CP